IBRAHIM ABDULRAHIM SHAIKH Vs. KRISHNAMORARI SRIPATLAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the landlord. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 211/ 72 dated 25-3-1975. He filed an application u / S. 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he was in arrears of the rent and also permitted increases. Though notice was issued to the respondent, he did not pay the rent and that, therefore, he is liable for ejectment. The appellant issued two notices one on January 8, 1955 and second notice on February 9, 1959. For both the notices, the respondent issued the reply on January 31, 1955 and February 25, 1959 respectively. Therein the tenant has specifically disputed the standard rent and also stated that there was no permitted increases of the rent. Immediately after the filing of the application and receipt of the notices the tenant had deposited all the arrears including permitted increases as claimed by the respondent and thereafter an application under Section II of the Act was filed for fixation of the standard rent and also permitted increases. All the three courts found as a fact that the respondent had paid all the permitted increases to the Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad. As regards the standard rent, it is found by the High Court that in the Rent Controller's Court before the appellate authority as well as the High Court, while the revision was pending in the High Court, he was regularly depositing the standard rent. As an abundant caution, the tenant also filed in the record all the deposits made by him from time to time which are part of the record in this Court at pages 300-306. Thus, it is clear that the tenant had been paying the rent from the date of the receipt of the notices in the eviction petition and has been continuing to deposit the same pending disposal of the litigation.

(2.) The sole question that arises for our consideration is whether the case falls under Section 12(3)(a) or (b). Section 12(3)(a) and (b) read as under:

(3.) The Act is a welfare legislation interposing into the contractual rights of the landlord and tenant and regulating the letting of the buildings and determination of the standard rent and permitted increases in accordance with the Act. The tenant is obligated to pay the rent to the landlord every month unless the landlord refuses to receive it. In the latter event recourse can be had to deposit the rent. Some statutes provide the, procedure for deposit in the court of the Rent Controller after following the procedure prescribed therein. If the tenant commits default in the payment of the rent the Act provides that the landlord is entitled to file an application for eviction if the arrears of rent continues for six months and more. The Act also prescribes issuance of a notice determining the tenancy for failure on the part of the tenant to pay the arrears of standard rent or permitted increases for six months and more and for delivery of possession. In case the tenant disputes the standard rent or permitted increases claimed in the notice, the tenant is enjoined under S. 12(3)(a) to dispute the correctness thereof and to plead prevailing one by issuing reply notice within one month from the date of its receipt. In that situation it is manifest that the landlord elected his statutory right to determine the tenancy on account of arrears for a period of six months or more. The landlord put the tenant on notice of his negligence and to make payment thereof within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice and on disputation is enjoined to seek remedy under S. 11(3) for determination of the standard rent or permitted increases. If he fails to dispute and omits to pay the arrears within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice, he became liable to be evicted under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. Admittedly the statute did not prescribe any period of limitation u /S 11(3) to lay the application for fixation of standard rent or permitted increases. Therefore, by necessary construction of Ss. 11 and 12, what this Court appears to have intended was that the tenant should dispute the standard rent or permitted increases within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice and then file the application under S. 11(3). It would not appear to have been meant that the application under S. 11(3) should also be filed within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice. But expeditious action is called for to prove the bona fides of the tenants disputing the right of the landlord in the claim of standard rent or permitted increases. The Act appears to have intended to quench thirst of the avaricious landlord to claim the rent in excess of the standard rent or permitted increases under the Act and at the same time obligated the tenant, in case of his dispute or disagreement, to have the statutory recourse for determining standard rent or permitted increases. Therefore, expeditious action had to be had before the receipt of the notice from the court which would indicate not only bona fides on the part of the tenant in resisting the claim for excess standard rent or-permitted increases but also to have his right to pay the standard rent or permitted increases determined according to law.